Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champa; Vol. II: Suvarnadvipa) v2.c13.s2.t2.5

v2.c13.s2.t2.5

But when this king of Śrī-Vijaya is identified with the king of Śailendravaṃśa mentioned in the inscription on face B, we must express a serious doubt. The word ‘Svasti’ at the beginning of the second inscription shows that it was an entirely new record, and not a part of the first. A comparison of the alphabets of the two records certainly indicates that they were contemporary or nearly so, but were not incised by the same hand, at one and the same time. Then, in the long eulogy of the king of Śrī-Vijaya in the first inscription, he is nowhere referred to as belonging to the Śailendra dynasty. On the other hand, Śrī-Vijaya is not mentioned in the second inscription, which not only refers to a Rājādhirāja and Prabhu (Lord) of the Śailendra dynasty, but gives us two of his appellations, Viṣṇu and Mahārāja. It is thus legitimate to hold that the two inscriptions must be regarded as emanating from different persons until we find proof to the contrary¹, the face B being obviously later in point of time. Thus the only reasonable conclusions that we can draw from the Ligor inscriptions are that the locality was included in the kingdom of Śrī-Vijaya in 775 A. D., and that it acknowledged the suzerainty of a king of the Śailendra dynasty at a subsequent period. There is nothing to prove that the king of Śrī-Vijaya belonged to the Śailendra dynasty.